Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #16

[Sillybilly]

I completely agree, but it's a bit disconcerting that there isn't 100% confidence in the evidence that it's an airtight case. The need for a "test", "test drive", "test run", or however you want to describe it, hints that he thinks there *is* room for reasonable doubt.

I don't think the Crown has any reasonable doubt, but is smart enough and logical enough to know that he has to convince 12 jurors (laypersons) beyond reasonable doubt (which is not 100%, but said to be more around 90%).

A case without bodies having been recovered is always going to be more difficult to prosecute and he knows it.

ETA: News.talk is faster and younger than I am and beat me to it , but we're both on the same page.

 

[news.talk]

I don't think the Crown has any reasonable doubt, but is smart enough and logical enough to know that he has to convince 12 jurors (laypersons) beyond reasonable doubt (which is not 100%, but said to be more around 90%).

A case without bodies having been recovered is always going to be more difficult to prosecute and he knows it.

JINX! [emoji39]

 

[Tinkerbel1]

I completely agree, but it's a bit disconcerting that there isn't 100% confidence in the evidence that it's an airtight case. The need for a "test", "test drive", "test run", or however you want to describe it, hints that he thinks there *is* room for reasonable doubt.

Yes, that's my thought as well.

 

[LoisLane]

I completely agree, but it's a bit disconcerting that there isn't 100% confidence in the evidence that it's an airtight case. The need for a "test", "test drive", "test run", or however you want to describe it, hints that he thinks there *is* room for reasonable doubt.

I think the "test" could be beneficial for both parties. It could show the defense they won't have a leg to stand on and may convince DG to plead guilty. Can a plea and verdict be reached in the preliminary phase and eliminate the need for a trial? Would the psych analysis need to be conducted prior to preliminary or could defense ask for it during the preliminary as a defense tactic? Does the psych analysis have a cut-off time in relation to the discovery (preliminary) and the trial?

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

I don't think the Crown has any reasonable doubt, but is smart enough and logical enough to know that he has to convince 12 jurors (laypersons) beyond reasonable doubt (which is not 100%, but said to be more around 90%).

A case without bodies having been recovered is always going to be more difficult to prosecute and he knows it.

ETA: News.talk is faster and younger than I am and beat me to it , but we're both on the same page.

Yes, we're all on the same page there. A statement like that just makes me wonder what evidence they actually have.

A compelling case would be victims DNA in the truck and at the acreage, some form of proof of death, like a part or a quantity, and perhaps a threat or plan written somewhere that ties it all up to the suspect. In fact, that is probably a best case scenario. From there, I can see where it becomes difficult, and requires a test drive.

We only need mention the OJ case to remind ourselves of the reliability, and the reasonable doubt with which juries can interpret evidence. I'd like to think the public at large is now more aware of, and better educated on forensic evidence than they were previously.

 

[LoisLane]

Today is Nathan's sixth birthday. I can not even begin to imagine how difficult today is for the family. I hope they have had a special day filled with love and feel Nathan's spirit all around them.

:rose:

 

[Sillybilly]

I think the "test" could be beneficial for both parties. It could show the defense they won't have a leg to stand on and may convince DG to plead guilty. Can a plea and verdict be reached in the preliminary phase and eliminate the need for a trial? Would the psych analysis need to be conducted prior to preliminary or could defense ask for it during the preliminary as a defense tactic? Does the psych analysis have a cut-off time in relation to the discovery (preliminary) and the trial?

During the prelim, the defence also has the benefit of finding out how the Crown will interpret the evidence and present it, and can further build their defence and possibly see any weaknesses in the Crown's case; they will have the opportunity to bring in their own forensic experts to offset those of the prosecution.

A guilty plea can be entered at any time, although best done prior to actual trial in order to gain favour with the Court.

Generally, a court-ordered psyche assessment would only be done if the defence suggests the accused is NCR. IF the defence (which doesn't require a court order to do so) has a psyche assessment done and wishes to present it on behalf of the accused, the Crown is within their right to ask for a court-ordered assessment.

CCC, Part XX.1, MENTAL DISORDER, Section 672.1 onward:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-360.html#docCont

 

[jillianzzcat]

Hi everyone...newbie here....been following this thread from the beginning. My heart aches for the the victims and their family members....especially JO and RO...as a parent, I just can't fathom what they are going through. I, myself have wondered how DG could have acted on his own in commiting this crime. My ideas are not set in stone that's for sure. There are days I find myself thinking that maybe NO is still out there somewhere....and that he will be found alive....I know, not reality! (please don't beat me for that) For today, I think that DG possibly caused grievous injury to KL ...forced AL to move her to the truck and drive to an unknown location with NO and DG as passengers....at this final location both are murdered and disposed of with KL, who I think would have passed en route. It would certainly have saved DG the task of removing all three from the Parkhill home alone. :blushing:

 

[Sillybilly]

Would the psych analysis need to be conducted prior to preliminary or could defense ask for it during the preliminary as a defense tactic? Does the psych analysis have a cut-off time in relation to the discovery (preliminary) and the trial?

<rsbm>

Re a cut-off date, I don't see anything in the CCC that addresses that (although admittedly I skimmed over becuz i have a life some days ... probably found somewhere in other rules, perhaps Rules of Discovery??). However, IMO it makes sense that it would be required before trial, otherwise the Crown would not have had an opportunity to request their own court-ordered assessment.

 

[ABro]

Which then begs the question, how is it having tunnel vision for intuitively suggesting there may be an accomplice?

I didn't say suggesting there was an accomplice was tunnel vision.

I said that continuing to insist there's an accomplice -- based on nothing more than intuition when you haven't seen the evidence that led trained professionals to conclude otherwise -- sounds a lot like tunnel vision.

And I'd like to emphasize again that I have no idea what the crown's case is based on or how strong or weak it is.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

I didn't say suggesting there was an accomplice was tunnel vision.

I said that continuing to insist there's an accomplice -- based on nothing more than intuition when you haven't seen the evidence that led trained professionals to conclude otherwise -- sounds a lot like tunnel vision.

It goes both ways. You are only intuitively speculating that LE has nothing to indicate there may be more involved. The lack of charges could simply mean they don't have enough evidence to prove it. Whether it's 60/40 or 25/75 plausible... plausible is plausible. To say it's not, is again, the definition of tunnel vision.

I see you took my advice about the book.

 

[news.talk]

Hi everyone...newbie here....been following this thread from the beginning. My heart aches for the the victims and their family members....especially JO and RO...as a parent, I just can't fathom what they are going through. I, myself have wondered how DG could have acted on his own in commiting this crime. My ideas are not set in stone that's for sure. There are days I find myself thinking that maybe NO is still out there somewhere....and that he will be found alive....I know, not reality! (please don't beat me for that) For today, I think that DG possibly caused grievous injury to KL ...forced AL to move her to the truck and drive to an unknown location with NO and DG as passengers....at this final location both are murdered and disposed of with KL, who I think would have passed en route. It would certainly have saved DG the task of removing all three from the Parkhill home alone. :blushing:

Since I'm younger, faster and far better looking than sillybilly...

Let me be the first to welcome you!

Come out of hiding more! We don't bite... much. [emoji39]

 

[Sillybilly]

A guilty plea can be entered at any time, although best done prior to actual trial in order to gain favour with the Court.

Sorry for quoting self, but just wanted to point to the recent case where Legebokoff (charged with 1st degree) tried to plead Guilty to 2nd degree during the trial and the court would not accept it. (Obviously an attempt at the 11th hour to hopefully get a lesser sentence).

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ies-of-murders-gets-rejected/article20476516/

 

[Sillybilly]

Since I'm younger, Gastel and far better looking than sillybilly...

Let me be the first to welcome you!

Come out of hiding more! We don't bite... much. [emoji39]

but I am wise and have character in my face :biggrin:

Welcome jillianzzcat !! :welcome:

 

[news.talk]

I don't think the Crown has any reasonable doubt, but is smart enough and logical enough to know that he has to convince 12 jurors (laypersons) beyond reasonable doubt (which is not 100%, but said to be more around 90%).

A case without bodies having been recovered is always going to be more difficult to prosecute and he knows it.

ETA: News.talk is faster and younger than I am and beat me to it , but we're both on the same page.

Don't forget FAR better looking and refuses to eat Stan's ginger snaps!

 

[ABro]

I think it is just silly to make accusations of some posters believing LE are not doing a good job, or even to make a point that some believe LE have the wrong man, just because some of us (perhaps two) feel differently for whatever reasons. Even after jurors sit through an entire trial and hear all of the (allowable) evidence in any given case, piece by piece, the jurors do not always reach the exact same conclusions. And I suppose that we would not even require trials at all, nor lawyers, if we could all take the given evidence and each reach the exact same conclusions, and with no evidence from the accused required.

In this case, as noted, there is a lack of information, which is perhaps how it should be, however the lack of information makes it easier still, to imagine the possibilities and that they could potentially be different than what we are pesented with on a platter. Isn't that what this site is for? Otherwise, it would be a fairly boring place over the next couple/few years regarding the cases in which LE has already made an arrest, while we sit tight and make no comments, or only comments in agreement with what is alluded to by LE, until we get to hear the evidence for ourselves.

That's the thing. We haven't been presented anything on a platter. All we know is that this guy has been accused.

We have no idea how strong the case against him is or isn't.

I don't have a blind faith in police and prosecutors. Far from it. But I'm not automatically suspicious of them either.

 

[ABro]

It goes both ways. You are only intuitively speculating that LE has nothing to indicate there may be more involved. The lack of charges could simply mean they don't have enough evidence to prove it..

I'm not speculating. They said they're not looking for anyone else. Nothing intuitive there.

 

[news.talk]

That's the thing. We haven't been presented anything on a platter. All we know is that this guy has been accused.

We have no idea how strong the case against him is or isn't.

I don't have a blind faith in police and prosecutors. Far from it. But I'm not automatically suspicious of them either.

I base my belief in them on public backlash...

Whenever there is a high profile, emotionally charged case, LE *knows* they are under a microscope. They have their superiors disecting every move and their evidence and investigative techniques are double, triple checked. While I like to believe that they do this for every case, I am a realist and know that these high profile cases are scrutinized beyond the norm.

 

[OutOfTheDarkness]

I'm not speculating. They said they're not looking for anyone else. Nothing intuitive there.

LE also said early on that they hoped to find them alive. *At that time* that's what the evidence told them. Subsequent evidence led them to the opposite.

Are you stating as fact the LE has absolutely nothing hinting at other people's involvement, or are you speculating that because we've heard nothing since that statement, that nothing could have possibly come to light or have changed?

I'm not following your original point.

 

[Sillybilly]

We have no idea how strong the case against him is or isn't.

<rsbm>

But we can be pretty sure the Crown's Charge Approval process has considered their case meets the Alberta threshold of "reasonable likelihood of conviction":

from the ULCC Uniform Law Conference:
http://www.ulcc.ca/en/2007-charlott...594-malicious-prosecution-report-2007?start=1

[40] The Martin Report (pp. 51-52) outlined the variances in the threshold test across Canada; it is not uniform. The test in Ontario is &#8220;reasonable prospect of conviction&#8221;. In British Columbia, it is &#8220;substantial likelihood of conviction&#8221;. In Quebec, counsel must be &#8220;reasonably satisfied&#8221; a conviction can be obtained. In New Brunswick, it is a &#8220;reasonable prospect of conviction&#8221;. In Alberta, it is &#8220;reasonable likelihood of conviction&#8221;. In Nova Scotia, it is &#8220;reasonable chance of conviction&#8221;. In Newfoundland, it is &#8220;probability of conviction&#8221;. All of these thresholds, however, point to an objective rather than a subjective standard for Crown attorney to follow.